Commodities & Energy Sector
Highlights Divergence between U.S. and global economic outcomes is bullish for the U.S. dollar and bad for EM assets; Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea, but it may not with Iran, putting upside pressure on oil; An election is the only way to resolve split over Brexit and the new anti-establishment coalition in Italy is not market positive; Historic election outcome in Malaysia and the prospect of a weakened Erdogan favors Malaysian over Turkish assets; Reinitiate long Russian vs EM equities in light of higher oil price and reopen French versus German industrials as reforms continue unimpeded in France. Feature "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900. May started with a geopolitical bang. On May 4, a high-profile U.S. trade delegation to Beijing returned home after two days of failed negotiations. Instead of bridging the gap between the two superpowers, the delegation doubled it.1 On May 8, President Trump put his Maximum Pressure doctrine - honed against Pyongyang - into action against Iran, announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal - also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These geopolitical headlines were good for the U.S. dollar, bad for Treasuries, and generally miserable for emerging market (EM) assets (Chart 1).2 We have expected these very market moves since the beginning of the year, recommending that clients go long the DXY on January 31 and go short EM equities vs. DM on March 6.3 Chart 1EM Breakdown? Chart 2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Geopolitical risks, however, are merely the accelerant of an ongoing process of global growth redistribution. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the divergent ramifications of populist stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China. This political divergence in economic outcomes has reduced growth in the latter and accelerated it in the former, a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 2).4 Data is starting to support this narrative: Chart 3Global Growth On A Knife Edge Chart 4German Data... The BCA OECD LEI has stalled, but the diffusion index shows a clear deterioration (Chart 3); German trade is showing signs of weakness, as is industrial production and IFO business confidence (Chart 4); Another bellwether of global trade, South Korea, is showing a rapid deterioration in exports (Chart 5); Global economic surprise index is now in negative territory (Chart 6). Chart 5...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks Chart 6Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the ledger, wage pressures are rising as the number of unemployed workers and job openings converge (Chart 7). Given the additional tailwinds of fiscal stimulus, which we see no real chance of being reversed either before or after the midterm election, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to surprise to the upside relative to the rest of the world, a bullish outcome for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). In this environment of U.S. outperformance and global growth underperformance, EM assets are likely to suffer. Chart 7U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD Additionally, it does not help that geopolitical risks will weigh on confidence and will buoy demand for safe haven assets, such as the U.S. dollar. First, U.S.-China trade relations will continue to dominate the news flow this summer. President Trump's positive tweets on the smartphone giant ZTE aside, the U.S. and China have not reached a substantive agreement and upcoming deadlines on trade-related matters remain a risk (Table 1). Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Second, President Trump's application of Maximum Pressure on Iran will cause further volatility and upside pressure on the oil markets. The media was caught by surprise by the president's announcement that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, which is puzzling given that the May 12 expiration of the sanctions waiver was well-telegraphed (Chart 9). It is also surprising given that President Trump signaled his pivot towards an aggressive foreign policy by appointing John Bolton and Mike Pompeo - two adherents of a hawkish foreign policy - to replace more middle-of-the-road policymakers. It was these personnel changes, combined with the U.S. president's lack of constraints on foreign policy, that inspired us to include Iran as the premier geopolitical risk for 2018.5 Chart 9Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran-U.S. Tensions: Maximum Pressure Is Real Last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast that President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine would work against North Korea. First, we noted that President Trump reestablished America's "credible threat," a crucial factor in any negotiation.6 Without credible threats, it is impossible to cajole one's rival into shifting away from the status quo. The trick with North Korea, for each administration that preceded President Trump, was that it was difficult to establish such a credible threat given Pyongyang's ability to retaliate through conventional artillery against South Korean population centers. President Trump swept this concern aside by appearing unconcerned with what were to befall South Korean civilians or the Korean-U.S. alliance. Second, we noted in a detailed military analysis that North Korean retaliation - apart from the aforementioned conventional capacity - was paltry.7 President Trump called Kim Jong-un's bluff about targeting Guam with ballistic missiles and kept up Maximum Pressure throughout a summer full of rhetorical bluster. As tensions rose, China blinked first, enforcing President Trump's demand for tighter sanctions. China did not want the U.S. to attack North Korea or to use the North Korean threat as a reason to build up its military assets in the region. The collapse of North Korean exports to China ultimately starved the regime of hard cash and, in conjunction with U.S. military and rhetorical pressure, forced Kim Jong-un to back off (Chart 10). In essence, President Trump's doctrine is a modification of President Theodore Roosevelt's maxim. Instead of "talking softly," President Trump recommends "tweeting aggressively".8 It is important to recount the North Korean experience for several reasons: Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea: It is an objective fact that President Trump was correct in using Maximum Pressure on North Korea. Our analysis last year carefully detailed why it would be a success. However, we also specifically outlined why it would work with North Korea. Particularly relevant was Pyongyang's inability to counter American economic pressure and rhetoric with material leverage. Kim Jong-un's only objective capability is to launch a massive artillery attack against civilians in Seoul. Given his preference not to engage in a full-out war against South Korea and the U.S., he balked and folded. Trump is tripling-down on what works: President Trump, as all presidents before him, is learning on the job. The North Korean experience has convinced him that his Maximum Pressure tactic works. In particular, it works because it forces third parties to enforce economic sanctions on the target nation. If China were to abandon its traditional ally North Korea and enforced painful sanctions, the logic goes, then Europeans would ditch Iran much faster. Iran is not North Korea: The danger with applying a Maximum Pressure tactic against Iran is that Tehran has multiple levers around the Middle East that it could deploy to counter U.S. pressure. President Obama did not sign the JCPOA merely because he was a dove.9 He did so because the deal resolved several regional security challenges and allowed the U.S. to pivot to Asia (Chart 11). Chart 10Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Chart 11Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative To understand why Iran is not North Korea, and how the application of Maximum Pressure could induce greater uncertainty in this case, investors first have to comprehend why the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal was concluded in the first place. Maximum Pressure Applied To Iran The 2015 U.S.-Iran deal resolved a crucial security dilemma in the Middle East: what to do about Iran's growing power in the region. Ever since the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the fulcrum of the region's disequilibrium has been the status of Iraq. Iraq is a natural geographic buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional rivals. Hussein, a Sunni, ruled Iraq - 65% of which is Shia - either as an overt client of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (1980-1988), or as a free agent largely opposed to everyone in the region (from 1990s onwards). Both options were largely acceptable to Saudi Arabia, although the former was preferable. Iran quickly seized the initiative in Iraq following the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, which created a vast vacuum of power in the country. Elite members of the country's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the so-called Quds Force, infiltrated Iraq and supplied various Shia militias with weapons and training that fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. An overt Iranian ally, Nouri al-Maliki, assumed power in 2006. Soon the anti-U.S. insurgency evolved into sectarian violence as the Sunni population revolted and various Sunni militias, supported by Saudi Arabia, rose up against Shia-dominated Baghdad. The U.S. troops stationed in Iraq quickly became either incapable of controlling the sectarian violence or direct targets of the violence themselves. This rebellion eventually mutated into the Islamic State, which spread from Iraq to Syria in 2012 and then back to Iraq two years later. The Obama administration quickly realized that a U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to be permanent if Iranian influence in the country was to be curbed in the long term. This position was untenable, however, given U.S. military casualties in Iraq, American public opinion about the war, and lack of clarity on U.S. long-term interests in Iraq in the first place. President Obama therefore simultaneously withdrew American troops from Iraq in 2011 and began pressuring Iran on its nuclear program between 2011 and 2015.10 In addition, the U.S. demanded that Iran curb its influence in Iraq, that its anti-American/Israel rhetoric cease, and that it help defend Iraq against the attacks by the Islamic State in 2014. Tehran obliged on all three fronts, joining forces with the U.S. Air Force and Special Forces in the defense of Baghdad in the fall 2014.11 In 2014, Iran acquiesced in seeing its ally al-Maliki replaced by the far less sectarian Haider al-Abadi. These moves helped ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. From Tehran's perspective, it has abided by all the demands made by Washington during the 2012-2015 negotiations, both those covered by the JCPOA overtly and those never explicitly put down on paper. Yes, Iran's influence in the Middle East has expanded well beyond Iraq and into Syria, where Iranian troops are overtly supporting President Bashar al-Assad. But from Iran's perspective, the U.S. abandoned Syria in 2012 - when President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" on chemical weapons use. In fact, without Iranian and Russian intervention, it is likely that the Islamic State would have gained a greater foothold in Syria. The point that its critics miss is that the 2015 nuclear deal always envisioned giving Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Otherwise, Tehran would not have agreed to curb its nuclear program! To force Iran to negotiate, President Obama did threaten Tehran with military force. As we have detailed in the past, President Obama established a credible threat by outsourcing it to Israel in 2011. It was this threat of a unilateral Israeli attack, which Obama did little to limit or prevent, that ultimately forced Europeans to accept the hawkish American position and impose crippling economic sanctions against Iran in early 2012. As such, it is highly unlikely that a rerun of the same strategy by the U.S., this time with Trump in charge and with potentially less global cooperation on sanctions, will produce a different, or better, deal. The recent history is important to recount because the Trump administration is convinced that it can get a better deal from Iran than the Obama administration did. This may be true, but it will require considerable amounts of pressure on Iran to achieve it. At some point, we expect that this pressure will look very much like a preparation for war against Iran, either by U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, or by the U.S. itself. First, President Trump will have to create a credible threat of force, as President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did in 2011-2012. Second, President Trump will have to be willing to sanction companies in Europe and Asia for doing business with Iran in order to curb Iran's oil exports. According to National Security Advisor John Bolton, European companies will have by the end of 2018 to curb their activities with Iran or face sanctions. The one difference this time around is Iraqi politics. Elections held on May 13 appear to have resulted in a surge of support for anti-Iranian Shia candidates, starting with the ardently anti-American and anti-Iranian Shia Ayatollah Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr is a Shia, but also an Iraqi nationalist who campaigned on an anti-Tehran, anti-poverty, anti-corruption line. If the election signals a clear shift in Baghdad against Iran, then Iran may have one less important lever to play against the U.S. and its allies. However, we are only cautiously optimistic about Iraq. Pro-Iranian Shia forces, while in a clear minority, still maintain the support of roughly half of Iraqi Shias. And al-Sadr may not be able to govern effectively, given that his track record thus far mainly consists of waging insurgent warfare (against Americans) and whipping up populist fervor (against Iran). Any move in Baghdad, with U.S. and Saudi backing, to limit Iranian-allied Shia groups from government could lead to renewed sectarian conflict. Therein lies the key difference between North Korea and Iran. Iran has military, intelligence, and operational capabilities that North Korea does not. This is precisely why the U.S. concluded the 2015 deal in the first place, so that Iran would curb those capabilities regionally and limit its operations to the Iranian "sphere of influence." In addition, Iran is constrained against reopening negotiations with the U.S. domestically by the ongoing political contest between the moderates - such as President Hassan Rouhani - and the hawks - represented by the military and intelligence nexus. Supreme Leader Khamenei sits somewhere in the middle, but will side with the hawks if it looks like Rouhani's promise of economic benefits from the détente with the West will fall short of reality. The combination of domestic pressure and capabilities therefore makes it likely that Iran retaliates against American pressure at some point. While such retaliation could be largely investment-irrelevant - say by supporting Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel or ramping up military operations in Syria - it could also affect oil prices if it includes activities in and around the Persian Gulf. Bottom Line: We caution clients not to believe the narrative that "Trump is all talk." As the example in North Korea suggests, Trump's rhetoric drove China to enforce sanctions in order to avert war on the Korean Peninsula. We therefore expect the U.S. administration to continue to threaten European and Asian partners and allies with sanctions, causing an eventual drop in Iranian oil exports. In addition, we expect Iran to play hardball, using its various proxies in the region to remind the Trump administration why Obama signed the 2015 deal in the first place. Could Trump ultimately be right on Iran as he was on North Korea? Absolutely. It is simply naïve to assume that Iran will negotiate without Maximum Pressure, which by definition will be market-relevant. Impact On Energy Markets BCA Energy Sector Strategy believes that the re-imposition of sanctions could result in a loss of 300,000-500,000 b/d of production by early 2019.12 This would take 2019 production back down to 3.3-3.5 MMB/d instead of growing to nearly 4.0 MMb/d as our commodity strategists have modeled in their supply-demand forecasts. In total, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for 2019 oil markets by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing the production that Iran has brought online since 2016 (Chart 12). Is the global energy market able to withstand this type of loss of production? First, Chart 13 shows that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been cut from 450 million barrels at its peak to less than 100 million barrels today. Surplus inventories are destined to shrink to nothing by the end of the year even without geopolitical risks. In short, there is no excess inventory cushion. Chart 12Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 13Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Second, spare capacity within the OPEC 2.0 alliance - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is controversial. Many clients believe that OPEC 2.0 could easily restore the 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. However, our commodity team has always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually has achieved (Chart 14). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are ##br##Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 15Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors"##br## Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Third, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.23 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 16). Venezuelan production declined by 450,000 b/d over the course of 21 months (December 2015 to September 2017), followed by another 450,000 b/d plunge over the past six months (September 2017 to March 2018), as the country's failing economy goes through the death spiral of its 20-year socialist experiment. The oil production supply chain is now suffering from shortages of everything, including capital. It is difficult to predict what broken link in the supply chain is most likely to impact production next, when it will happen, and what the size of the production impact will be. The combination of President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine applied to Iran, continued deterioration in Venezuelan production, and the inability of OPEC 2.0 to surge production as fast as the market thinks is unambiguously bullish for oil prices. Oil markets are currently pricing in a just under 35% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end (Chart 17).13 We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Indeed, we think that the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are much higher than the 16% chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. Chart 16Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 17Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Bottom Line: Our colleague Bob Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist, also expects higher volatility, as news flows become noisier. The recommendation by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is to go long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectations. A key variable to watch in the ongoing saga will be President Trump's willingness to impose secondary sanctions against European and Asian companies doing business with Iran. We do not think that the White House is bluffing. The mounting probability of sanctions will create "stroke of pen" risk and raise compliance costs to doing business with Iran, leading to lower Iranian exports by the end of the year. Europe Update: Political Risks Returning Risks in Europe are rising on multiple fronts. First, we continue to believe that the domestic political situation in the U.K. regarding Brexit is untenable. Second, the coalition of populists in Italy - combining the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Euroskeptic Lega - appears poised to become a reality. Brexit: Start Pricing In Prime Minister Corbyn Since our Brexit update in February, the pound has taken a wild ride, but our view has remained the same.14 PM May has an untenable negotiating position. The soft-Brexit majority in Westminster is growing confident while the hard-Brexit majority in her own Tory party is growing louder. We do not know who will win, but odds of an unclear outcome are growing. The first problem is the status of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of paramilitary conflict on the island, established an invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Membership in the EU by both made the removal of a physical border a simple affair. But if the U.K. exits the bloc, and takes Northern Ireland with it, presumably a physical barrier would have to be reestablished, either in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. The former would jeopardize the Good Friday agreement, the latter would jeopardize the U.K.'s integrity as a state. The EU, led on by Dublin's interests, has proposed that Northern Ireland maintain some elements of the EU acquis communautaire - the accumulated body of EU's laws and obligations - in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. For many Tories in the U.K., particularly those who consider themselves "Unionists," the arrangement smacks of a Trojan Horse by the EU to slowly but surely untie the strings that bind the U.K. together. If Northern Ireland gets an exception, then pro-EU Scotland is sure to ask for one too. The second problem is that the Tories are divided on whether to remain part of the EU customs union. PM May is in favor of a "customs partnership" with the EU, which would see unified tariffs and duties on goods and services across the EU bloc and the U.K. However, her own cabinet voted against her on the issue, mainly because a customs union with the EU would eliminate the main supposed benefit of Brexit: negotiating free trade deals independent of the EU. It is unclear how PM May intends to resolve the multiple disagreements on these issues within her party. Thus far, her strategy was to simply put the eventual deal with the EU up for a vote in Westminster. She agreed to hold such a vote, but with the caveat that a vote against the deal would break off negotiations with the EU and lead to a total Brexit. The threat of such a hard Brexit would force soft Brexiters among the Tories to accept whatever compromise she got from Brussels. Unfortunately for May's tactic, the House of Lords voted on April 30 to amend the flagship EU Withdrawal Bill to empower Westminster to send the government back to the negotiating table in case of a rejection of the final deal with the EU. The amendment will be accepted if the House of Commons agrees to it, which it may, given that a number of soft Brexit Tories are receptive. A defeat of the final negotiated settlement could prolong negotiations with the EU. Brussels is on record stating that it would prolong the transition period and give the U.K. a different Brexit date, moving the current date of March 2019. However, it is unclear why May would continue negotiating at that point, given that her own parliament would send her back to Brussels, hat in hand. The fundamental problem for May is the same that has plagued the last three Tory Prime Ministers: the U.K. Conservative Party is intractably split with itself on Brexit. The only way to resolve the split may be for PM May to call an election and give herself a mandate to negotiate with the EU once she is politically recapitalized. This realization, that the probability of a new election is non-negligible, will likely weigh on the pound going forward. Investors would likely balk at the possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will become the prime minister, although polling data suggests that his surge in popularity is over (Chart 18). Local elections in early May also ended inconclusively for Labour's chances, with no big outpouring for left-leaning candidates. Even if Labour is forced to form a coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP), it is unlikely that the left-leaning SNP would be much of a check on Corbyn's Labour. Chart 18Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Bottom Line: Theresa May will either have to call a new election between now and March of next year or she will use the threat of a new election to get hard-Brexit Tories in line. Either way, markets will have to reprice the probability of a Labour-led government between now and a resolution to the Brexit crisis. Italy: Start Pricing In A Populist Government Leaders of Italy's populist parties - M5S and Lega - have come to an agreement on a coalition that will put the two anti-establishment parties in charge of the EU's third-largest economy. Markets are taking the news in stride because M5S has taken a 180-degree turn on Euroskepticism. Although Lega remains overtly Euroskeptic, its leader Matteo Salvini has said that he does not want a chaotic exit from the currency bloc. Is the market right to ignore the risks? On one hand, it is a positive development that the anti-establishment forces take over the reins in Italy. Establishment parties have failed to reform the country, while time spent in government will de-radicalize both anti-establishment parties. Furthermore, the one item on the political agenda that both parties agree on is to radically curb illegal migration into Italy, a process that is already underway (Chart 19). On the other hand, the economic pact signed by both parties is completely and utterly incompatible with reality. It combines a flat tax and a guaranteed basic income with a lowering of the retirement age. This would blow a hole in Italy's budget, barring a miraculous positive impact on GDP growth. The market is likely ignoring the coalition's economic policies as it assumes they cannot be put into action. This is not because Rome is afraid to flout Brussels' rules, but because the bond market is not going to finance Italian expenditures. Long-dated Italian bonds are already cheap relative to the country's credit rating (Chart 20), evidence that the market is asking for a premium to finance Italian expenditures. This is despite the ongoing ECB bond buying efforts. Once the ECB ends the program later this year, or in early 2019, the pressure on Rome from the bond market will grow. Chart 19European Migration Crisis Is Over Chart 20Italian Bonds Still Require A Risk Premium We suspect that both M5S and Lega are aware of their constraints. After all, neither M5S leader Luigi Di Maio nor Lega's Salvini are going to take the prime minister spot. This is extraordinary! We cannot remember the last time a leader of the winning party refused to take the top political spot following an election. Both Di Maio and Salvini are trying to pass the buck for the failure of the coalition. In one way, this is market-positive, as it suggests that the anti-establishment coalition will do nothing of note during its mandate. But it also suggests that markets will have to deal with a new Italian election relatively quickly. As such, we would warn investors to steer clear of Italian assets. Their performance in 2017, and early 2018, suggests that the market has already priced in the most market-positive outcome. Yes, Italy will not leave the Euro Area. But no, there is no "Macron of Italy" to resolve its long-term growth problems. Bottom Line: The Italian government formation is not market-positive. Italian bonds are cheap for a reason. While it is unlikely that the populist coalition will have the room to maneuver its profligate coalition deal into action, the bond market may have to discipline Italian policymakers from time to time. In the long term, none of the structural problems that Italy faces - many of which we have identified in a number of reports - will be tackled by the incoming coalition.15 This will expose Italy to an eventual resurgence in Euroskepticism at the first sight of the next recession. Emerging Markets: Elections In Malaysia And Turkey Offer Divergent Outcomes As we pointed out at the beginning of this report, an environment of rising U.S. yields, a surging dollar, and moderating global growth is negative for emerging markets. In this context, politics is unlikely to make much of a difference. The recently announced early election in Turkey is a case in point. Markets briefly cheered the announced election (Chart 21), before investors realized that there is unlikely to be a consolidation of power behind President Erdogan (Chart 22). Even if Erdogan were to somehow massively outperform expectations and consolidate political capital, it is not clear why investors would cheer such an outcome given his track record, particularly on the economy, over the past decade. Chart 21Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Chart 22Is Erdogan In Trouble? Malaysia, on the other hand, could be the one EM economy that defies the negative macro context due to political events. Our most bullish long-term scenario for Malaysia - a historic victory for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition - came to pass with the election on May 9 (Chart 23).16 Significantly, outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak accepted the election results as the will of the people. He did not incite violence or refuse to cede power. Rather, he congratulated incoming Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and promised to help ensure a smooth transition. This marks the first transfer of power since Malaysian independence in 1957. It was democratic and peaceful, which establishes a hugely consequential and market-friendly precedent. How did the opposition pull off this historic upset? Ethnic-majority Malays swung to the opposition; Mahathir's "charismatic authority" had an outsized effect; Barisan Nasional "safety deposits" in Sabah and Sarawak failed; Voters rejected fundamentalist Islamism. What are the implications? Better Governance - Governance has been deteriorating, especially under Najib's rule, but now voters have demanded improvements that could include term-limits for prime ministers and legislative protections for officials investigating wrongdoing by top leaders (Chart 24). Economic Stimulus - Pakatan Harapan campaigned against some of the painful pro-market structural reforms that Najib put in place. They have promised to repeal the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) and reinstate fuel subsidies. They have also proposed raising the minimum wage and harmonizing it across the country. While these pledges will be watered down,17 they are positive for nominal growth in the short term but negative for fiscal sustainability in the long term. Chart 23Comfortable Majority For Pakatan Harapan Coalition Chart 24Voters Want Governance Improvements The one understated risk comes from China. Najib's weakness had led him to court China and rely increasingly on Chinese investment as an economic strategy. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan will seek to revise all Chinese investment (including under the Belt and Road Initiative). This review is not necessarily to cancel projects but to haggle about prices and ensure that domestic labor is employed. Mahathir will also try to assert Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. None of this means that a crisis is impending, but China has increasingly used economic sanctions to punish and reward its neighbors according to whether their electoral outcomes are favorable to China,18 and we expect tensions to increase. Investment Conclusion On the one hand, in the short run, the picture for Malaysia is mixed. Pakatan Harapan will likely pursue some stimulative economic policies, but these come amidst fundamental macro weaknesses that we have highlighted in the past - and may even exacerbate them. On the other hand, a key external factor is working in the new government's favor: oil. With oil prices likely to move higher, the Malaysian ringgit is likely to benefit (Chart 25), helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power, a key election grievance. Higher oil prices are also correlated with higher equity prices. Over the long run, we have a high-conviction view that this election is bullish for Malaysia. It sends a historic signal that the populace wants better governance. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has found that improvements in governance are crucial for long-term productivity, growth, and asset performance.19 Hence, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends clients go long Malaysian equities relative to EM. Now is a good entry point despite short-term volatility (Chart 26). We also think that going long MYR/TRY will articulate both our bullish oil story as well as our divergent views on political risks in Malaysia and Turkey (Chart 27). Chart 25Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Chart 26Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Chart 27Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY We are re-initiating two trades this week. First, the recently stopped out long Russian / short EM equities recommendation. We still believe that the view is on strong fundamentals, at least in the tactical and cyclical sense.20 Russian President Vladimir Putin has won another mandate and appears to be focusing on domestic economy and the constraints to Russian geopolitical adventurism have grown. The Trump administration has apparently also grown wary of further sanctions against Russia. However, our initial timing was massively off, as tensions between Russia and West did not peak in early March as we thought. We are giving this high-risk, high-reward trade another go, particularly in light of our oil price outlook. Second, we booked 10.26% gains on our recommendation to go long French industrials versus their German counterparts. We are reopening this view again as structural reforms continue in France unimpeded. Meanwhile, risk of global trade wars and a global growth slowdown should impact the high-beta German industrials more than the French. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Washington's demand that China cut its annual trade surplus has grown from $100 billion, announced previously by President Trump, to at least $200 billion. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: A Correction Or Bear Market?" dated May 10, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "'America Is Roaring Back!' (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?),"dated January 31, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, and "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Instead of a "big stick," President Trump would likely also recommend a "big nuclear button." 9 This is an important though obvious point. We find that many liberally-oriented clients are unwilling to give President Trump credit for correctly handling the North Korean negotiations. Similarly, conservative-oriented clients refuse to accept that President Obama's dealings with Iran had a strategic logic, even though they clearly did. President Obama would not have been able to conclude the JCPOA without the full support of U.S. intelligence and military establishment. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 While there was no confirmed collaboration between Iranian ground forces in Iraq and the U.S. Air Force, we assume that it happened in 2014 in the defense of Baghdad. The U.S. A-10 Warthog was extensively used against Islamic State ground forces in that battle. The plane is most effective when it has communication from ground forces engaging enemy units. Given that Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias did the majority of the fighting in the defense of Baghdad, we assume that there was tactical communication between U.S. and the Iranian military in 2014, a whole year before the U.S.-Iran nuclear détente was concluded. 12 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," dated May 10, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update," dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, and "Europe's Divine Comedy Party II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof)," dated March 21, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 For instance, the proposed Sales and Services Tax (SST) is more like a rebranding of the GST than a true abolition. And while fuel subsidies will be reinstated - weighing on the fiscal deficit - they will have a quota and only certain vehicles will be eligible. It will not be a return to the old pricing regime where subsidies were unlimited and were for everyone. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ranking EM Countries Based on Structural Variables," dated August 2, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Our confidence in additional significant bank relative price gains has decreased. There is budding evidence that the bank/yield curve correlation is getting re-established, as we had posited last autumn, and coupled with later cycle dynamics signal that the bank outperformance is getting long in the tooth. Recent Changes Crystalize gains of 6% in the S&P banks index and remove from the high-conviction overweight call list. Put the S&P banks index on downgrade alert. Prefer large caps to small caps (please refer to the May 10th Sector Insight). Table 1 Feature Equities staged a breakout attempt last week and the SPX reclaimed the 50-day moving average, with the energy sector leading the pack. However, the lateral move in place over the past quarter is not over yet as the market is still digesting the February 5th drawdown. Importantly, EPS euphoria cannot last forever and the inevitable profit growth deceleration post the calendar 2018 onetime tax reform fillip is weighing on the market. The 12-month forward EPS growth rate has come down to 15%, and as we move into the back half of 2018 it will continue to glide toward a still impressive 10% (or two times nominal GDP growth), which is where the calendar 2019 estimate currently stands (Chart 1). Following up from last week's 'Til Debt Do Us Part' Special Report, the overall market's (ex-financials and ex-real estate) 'Altman Z-score' is waving a mini yellow flag. Cyclical momentum in this indicator is giving way and the broad market's deteriorating creditworthiness is also, at the margin, anchoring profit growth (Chart 2). Chart 1Unsustainable EPS Euphoria Chart 2Watching Balance Sheets... Nevertheless, we remain constructive on the broad market from a cyclical 9-12 month horizon as the odds of recession are close to nil, and interpret recent market action as a sign of resiliency. The SPX refuses to give way to the bearish narrative plagued by geopolitical uncertainty/fears and slowing global growth. Chart 3 shows an extremely economically sensitive indicator, lumber, alongside the ISM manufacturing survey. Since 1969 when lumber futures first commenced trading, these two series have been tightly positively correlated. Recently, a rare and steep divergence is visible and our inclination is to expect all-time high lumber prices to arrest the ISM's fall in the coming months. True, lumber prices reflect a NAFTA-related premium and at the current juncture cannot be fully trusted that they are emitting an accurate economic signal. We, thus, resort to another - daily reported - global growth barometer, the Baltic Dry Index (BDI). The third panel of Chart 3 shows that a wide gap has opened between the ISM manufacturing index and the BDI. If our assessment is correct and this global growth soft patch is transitory, then the ISM will remain squarely clear of the 50 boom/bust line. Taken together, these two economically sensitive high frequency series comprise our Global Trade Indicator which is underscoring that global export growth will pick up in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 3). Finally, on the domestic freight front,1 the composite freight index is also reaccelerating, signaling that domestic demand conditions are firing on all cylinders (fourth panel, Chart 3). Circling back to profit growth, long-term S&P 500 EPS growth expectations have vaulted to the highest level since the dotcom bubble (bottom panel, Chart 4). While in isolation, this measure signals we are in overshoot territory and such breakneck EPS growth is clearly unsustainable, the SPX PEG ratio tells a different story (we divide the 12-month forward price to earnings ratio by the long-term EPS growth rate to arrive at the current reading near 1 on the S&P 500 PEG ratio, Chart 4). Chart 3...But Economy Is Humming Chart 4Market Is Cheap According To PEG Ratio On this valuation measure the SPX appears cheap. Historically, every time the PEG ratio has sunk to one standard deviation below the mean, at least a reflex rebound ensued. Table 2 summarizes the five most recent iterations we included in the analysis since 1985. While we cannot rule out a steep undershoot, if history at least rhymes, the S&P should be higher in the subsequent 12 months (Chart 5). Chart 5SPX Cycle-On-Cycle Return Profile When The PEG Ratio Gets Depressed Table 2S&P 500 Yearly Returns* This week we are removing an early cyclical index from our high-conviction call list, locking in handsome profits, and updating a high-beta energy sub-index. Put Banks On Downgrade Watch Despite a blockbuster earnings season, banks have come under pressure recently. Worrisomely, they have not followed the 10-year Treasury yield higher and that is cause for concern. We first cautioned last October that banks would shatter their near one-to-one relationship with the 10-year UST yield and re-establish it with the yield curve likely in the back half of 2018 as the Fed would further lift the fed funds rate away from the zero lower bound.2 This positive correlation shift from interest rates to the yield curve slope is important as it will likely squeeze banks' net interest margins, a key profit driver (Chart 6). Charts 7 & 8 show that there is increasing empirical evidence that banks have already started making this transition away from the 10-year UST yield and toward the 10/2 yield curve, and we are thus compelled to book profits of 6% and remove this early cyclical index from the high-conviction overweight call list. The S&P banks index is now also on downgrade alert. Chart 6NIM Trouble? Chart 7Monitoring Shifting... Chart 8...Correlations What would cause us to change our yearlong cyclical constructive view and move to a benchmark allocation, is a lack of relative price outperformance in the next 10-year Treasury yield jump. Crudely put, if banks fail to best the market when the bond market further sells off roughly to 3.25%, as BCA's fixed income strategists expect, we will pull the trigger and downgrade to a neutral stance. Another reason we are likely to become more wary of bank relative performance in the coming quarters is the stage of the business cycle. Importantly, we wanted to test our hypothesis that in the late/later stages of the expansion early cyclicals, banks included, fare poorly. Therefore, at some point we should move away from our sanguine view on this index and not overstay our welcome as the current expansion has become the second longest on record according to the NBER designated recessions. In more detail, what we did to test this hypothesis was to document relative bank performance from when the ISM manufacturing peaked for the cycle until the recession commenced going back to the 1960s (Chart 9). Table 3 aggregates the results using monthly data. What is clear is that if the recession is a financial crisis related recession, then shy away from banks. But, in 4 out of the 7 last cycles dating back to the 1960s, banks outperformed the broad market in the later stages of the business cycle. Chart 9Banks Tend To Slump In Later Stages Of The Cycle Table 3Late Cycle Analysis Nevertheless, breaking down the results in two periods is instructive. One period recalibrates the bank relative returns from the ISM peak until the SPX peak, and the second one from the SPX peak until the recession commences (Table 3). Banks clearly underwhelm 4 out of the 7 iterations as the SPX crests, confirming our negative return hypothesis. Subsequently, as the SPX deflates when the economy heads into recession, relative bank performance significantly improves with the caveat that during financial crises, banks continue to bleed (in an upcoming Special Report we will be performing the same analysis on the GICS1 U.S. equity sectors, stay tuned). Two weeks ago we lifted our peak SPX target to 3200,3 and the implication is that banks' best days have likely passed, if history at least rhymes. Bottom Line: Stay overweight banks for now, but lock in gains of 6% and remove the S&P banks index from the high-conviction overweight call list, as our confidence is not as high as in late-November.4 Further, we are putting this key financials sub index on downgrade alert reflecting the negative implication from our later stages of the business cycle analysis. We are closely monitoring the yield curve slope and interest rate correlation with bank performance, and if banks refrain from participating in the next leg up in interest rates it will serve as a catalyst to prune exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB. Energy Servicers: The Phoenix Is Rising Quarter-to-date the S&P energy services index is up 12% compared with the 2% rise in the broad market. Even year-to-date, oil servicing companies have bested the market by 600bps. The steep rebound in oil prices primarily lies behind such stellar outperformance, and BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy still-upbeat crude oil view is a harbinger of even brighter days ahead for this high-beta energy sub sector (Chart 10). While we are exploring our capex upcycle theme via a high-conviction overweight in the broad S&P energy index, oil services companies are also a prime beneficiary of our synchronized global capital outlays upcycle theme. In fact, relative share price momentum does not yet fully reflect the rebound in industry investment (using national accounts) that remains in a V-shaped recovery since the Q1/2016 oil market trough (second panel, Chart 11). Importantly, OPEC 2.0 and $70/bbl oil prices have resulted in a semblance of normality in the E&P space (a key industry client) that has lifted spending budgets (bottom panel, Chart 11). The upshot is that energy services revenues will continue to expand (Chart 11). Energy related capital spending budgets are not only rising in the U.S. (primarily in shale oil), but also globally. The global rig count is breaking out, and declining OECD oil stocks suggest that drilling activity will remain robust (top and second panel, Chart 12). Chart 10Catch up Phase Chart 11Capex Upcycle... Chart 12...Beneficiary Taking the pulse of oil services industry slack is extremely important for profitability. Our global idle rig proxy is also making a breakout attempt following a massive two year plus retrenchment phase (top panel, Chart 13). Keep in mind that energy servicers have only recently exited deflation, that wreaked havoc in the sector's financial metrics. Now as a renormalization period is unfolding with higher underlying commodity prices breathing life into industry new order growth, even a modest pricing power rebound will go a long way in lifting depressed profits. In fact, new orders-to-inventories are in a reflex rebound. While such an exponential rise is unsustainable, firming oil services demand should continue to remove excess slack, a boon for industry selling prices and profits (middle and bottom panels, Chart 13). Sentiment toward this energy sub-index remains bombed out and there is widespread disbelief that this rebound is sustainable. Rather, the risk of a deflationary relapse has kept investors at bay pushing relative valuations deep into undervalued territory. Both our composite relative Valuation Indicator (VI) and relative price-to-book are hovering near all-time lows (bottom panel, Chart 12). Technicals are not as depressed as the VI reading, with the recent relative share price bounce lifting our relative Technical Indicator to the neutral zone (Chart 14). Chart 13Deflation Is Over Chart 14Unloved And Underowned In sum, there are more gains in store for the S&P energy services index. Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy service index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE -NOV, SLB, FTI, BHGE, HAL, HP. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 The freight transportation services index consists of: For-hire trucking (parcel services are not included); Freight railroad services (including rail-based intermodal shipments such as containers on flat cars); Inland waterway traffic; Pipeline movements (including principally petroleum and petroleum products and natural gas); and Air freight. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Later Cycle Dynamics," dated October 23, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Lifting SPX Target," dated April 30, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps
Highlights At just under 3-in-10 odds, the probability Brent crude oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end is now more than double what it was at the beginning of the year, following President Trump's announcement he would withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and re-impose all economic sanctions against Iran (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekProbability Brent Exceeds $90/bbl Is Understated By Markets We believe these odds are too low. Indeed, we think the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are higher than the 1-in-8 chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. We also expect sharper down moves going forward, as news flows become noisier. Speculators have loaded the boat on the long side, and they will be exquisitely sensitive to any unexpected softening in fundamentals - e.g., a supply increase or the whiff of lower demand - given their positioning (Chart 2). Chart 2Specs Have Loaded the Boat##BR##Getting Long Brent and WTI Exposure Our research indicates that spec positioning in the underlying futures can, under some circumstances, dominate the evolution of oil options' implied volatility, the markets' key gauge of risk and the essential component of option pricing. As new risk factors arising from Trump's decision emerge, we expect option implied volatility to increase, as the frequency of spec re-positioning increases. Energy: Overweight. We are getting long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectation. We also recommend getting long Aug/19 $75 Brent calls vs. short Aug/19 $80/bbl calls. We already are long Dec/18 $65/bbl Brent calls vs. short $70/bbl calls expiring at the end of Oct/18, which are up 74.2% since they were recommended in Feb/18. Rising vol favors long options positions. The new positions will put on at tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. Refined copper imports in China grew 47% y/y in March. For the first four months of 2018 they are up 15% y/y. Imports of copper ores and concentrates were up 9.7% y/y in the January - April period. Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain strategically long gold and tactically long spot silver. A stronger USD continues to weigh on both. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's weekly Crop Progress report indicates farmers in the U.S. are catching up in their spring planting, converging toward averages for this time of year. Nevertheless, the condition of winter wheat remains a concern. Feature The wild swings in crude oil prices following President Trump's decision not to waive nuclear-related sanctions against Iran - down ~ 2% after Trump's announcement Tuesday, then up more than 2.5% the following morning - resolved one of the more important "known unknowns" ahead of schedule - to wit, would the U.S. re-impose nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, or continue to waive them.1 Ahead of Trump's announcement this week, speculators clearly were building long positions in Brent and WTI, as seen in Chart 2. Among other things, stout fundamentals, which we have been highlighting, and a possible tightening of supply on the back of the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions were obvious catalysts for building the bullish positions. We find specs do not Granger-cause oil prices, and typically these traders are reacting to fundamental news.2 This is consistent with other research into this topic.3 In other words, we find specs essentially follow the fundamentals, they don't lead them, and, as a result, the level of oil prices largely is explained by supply, demand and inventories. Based on the Granger-causality tests and our fundamental modeling, we believe oil markets are, to a very large extent, efficient in the sense that prices reflect most publicly available information.4 This is not to say, however, that the role of speculation can be dismissed as trivial to price formation. Spec Positioning Matters For Implied Volatility In Oil Our most recent research, building on earlier work on speculation in oil markets, finds that the concentration of speculators on the long side or the short side of the market actually does play a significant role in how volatility evolves (Chart 3, bottom panel).5 Other factors are important to the evolution of volatility, as well - i.e., U.S. financial conditions, particularly the stress in the system as measured by the St. Louis Fed's Financial Stress Index; EM equity volatility; and y/y percent changes in WTI oil prices themselves (Chart 3). But spec positioning clearly dominates: In periods of rising or elevated volatility, it explains most of the change in WTI option implied volatilities (Chart 4). This can push volatility higher when it occurs. However, on the downside, this does not hold - Working's T Index is not material to the evolution of implied volatility when uncertainty about future oil prices is low or decreasing. Chart 3Key Variables##BR##Explaining Volatility Chart 4Spec Positioning Dominates##BR##Evolution of WTI Implied Volatility Working's T Index and implied volatility are independent of price direction - they are directionless, therefore they cannot be used to forecast prices.6 These variables tend to increase when the quality of information available to the market deteriorates - i.e., when it becomes more difficult to form expectations about future oil prices. This is, we believe, an attractive time for informed speculators to enter the market and use their information to make profits. We find two-way Granger-causality between WTI implied volatility and Working's T, when the annual change in excess speculation is one-standard deviation above or below its mean. This means the more specs are concentrated on one side of the market in the underlying futures - long or short - the more influence their positioning has on volatility, and that the higher volatility is the more specs are drawn to the market. Given that specs' beliefs are different, this means there is a rising number of long or short spec contracts relative not only to specs on the other side of the market, but also to long and short hedgers. Why Speculation Is Important Prices do not suddenly manifest themselves in markets fully aligned with fundamentals. They are made efficient by hedgers off-loading risk based on their marginal costs, and speculators uncovering information that is material to the level at which prices clear markets. The goal of speculation is to buy low and sell high. Hedging and speculation are both done in the presence of noise, or pseudo-information that has no real connection with where markets clear.7 Information is to noise as substance is to a void. Noise can look like information, as Black (1986) notes, and people can trade on it, but they will lose money and eventually go out of business. Information, on the other hand, is costly, as Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) point out. To incentivize someone (a speculator) to gather it and feed it into prices via the market clearing - i.e., buying and selling based on information - they have to be able to make a profit. Speculators supply the liquidity necessary for trading - and, most importantly, hedging - to occur. Successful speculators make profits. Therefore, the information on which they trade is more often germane to the market-clearing process than not. To be successful they have to be willing to buy when prices are low, expecting them to go higher, and to sell when prices are high, expecting them to go lower. As Paul Samuelson wryly observed, "Is there any other kind of price than 'speculative' price? Uncertainty pervades real life and future prices are never knowable with precision. An investor is a speculator who has been successful; a speculator is merely an investor who last lost his money."8 Known Unknowns Will Keep Vol Elevated Chart 5BCA's Oil Price Forecast Unchanged,##BR##Following Trump's Iran Announcement In the wake of Trump's announcement, the fundamental and geopolitical landscape has been re-cast, creating additional "known unknowns", particularly re how the U.S. will implement the renewed sanctions and the timing of these moves. Among the new known unknowns, which can only be resolved with the passage of time, are: The precise timing and extent of the re-imposed sanctions on the part of the U.S., which will evolve over the next 90 to 180 days. Demand-side implications of higher prices, particularly in EM economies where policymakers used the low prices following OPEC's 2014 - 16 market-share war to eliminate fuel subsidies, which prevented high prices from being experienced by their citizens. The supply-side implications of higher prices on U.S. shale production - does production and investment, including pipeline take-away capacity, take another leg higher? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's (KSA) ability to raise output, given the Kingdom said it would be raising output in the event Iranian volumes are lost to export markets. The fate of the Saudi Aramco IPO, and how the re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. on Iran affects the royal family's decision on whether to float 5% of the company publicly. Will production in distressed states in- and outside of OPEC be negatively affected by increasing geopolitical risk?9 Among the "known unknowns," Iran's next moves rank high, as do responses to such moves by the U.S. and its allies. The U.S. and its Gulf allies clearly view Iran as a threat and, with the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran, are confronting it. Iran has a similar view vis-à-vis the U.S. and its Gulf allies. Left to be determined: Does Iran increase its level of direct action against KSA, upping the ante, so to speak, in its ongoing proxy wars with the Kingdom? Is Gulf production threatened? Are U.S. - European relations threatened by Trump's action? Thus far, European leaders have indicated they remain committed to the sanctions deal Trump walked away from. What would it take for OPEC 2.0 to restore actual production cuts we estimate at 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d to the market? What would it take to trigger a release of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), estimated at just under 664-million-barrel, which could be released to the market at a rate of 500k to 1mm b/d? These known unknowns are not causing us to change our price forecast for this year - $74/bbl for Brent and $70/bbl for WTI, based on our fundamental modeling (Chart 5). However, we do think price risk is to the upside in both markets, given the elevated geopolitical tensions in the market. We continue to expect more frequent prices excursions to and through $80/bbl for the balance of the year, particularly for Brent. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 We lay out some of these "known unknowns" in BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," published April 19, 2018. In addition to the Iran issues, which have been resolved, Venezuela looms large. Oil production declined by 900k b/d between December 2015 and March 2018, with half of that occurring in the past six months. We are carrying Venezuela's current production at ~ 1.5mm b/d, although other estimates have it lower. With the country moving closer to collapsing as a functioning state, the risk to its oil output and exports is high. 2 Granger-causality refers to an econometric test developed by Clive Granger, the 2003 Nobel laureate in economics. It determines whether past values of one variable can be said to predict, or cause, the present value of another variable. 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published April 26, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also the International Energy Agency's "Oil: Medium-Term Market Report 2012;" and "The Role of Speculation in Oil Markets: What Have We Learned So Far?" by Bassam Fattouh, Lutz Kilian and Lavan Mahadeva, published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies. Also, see "Speculation, Fundamentals, and The Price of Crude Oil," by Kenneth B. Medlock III, published by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, August 2013. 4 This is the semi-strong form of market efficiency. For a discussion of how markets impound information in prices, please see Eugene Fama's Noble lecture, "Two Pillars of Asset Pricing," which was reprinted in the June 2014 issue of The American Economic Review (p. 1467). 5 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil," published April 26, 2018, in which we introduce Holbrook Working's "T Index," a measure of speculative concentration in futures and options markets. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Briefly, Working's T Index shows how much speculative positioning exceeds the net demand for hedging from commercial participants in the market. Excessive speculation - spec positioning in excess of hedging demand by commercial interests - could be read into index values above 1.0. However, the U.S. CFTC notes values of Working's T at or below 1.15 do not provide sufficient liquidity to support hedging, even though "there is an excess of speculation, technically speaking." Formally, Working's T Index looks like this: 6 Please see Irwin, S. H. and D. R. Sanders (2010), "The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets: Preliminary Results", OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 27. 7 Please see Black, Fischer (1986), "Noise," in the Journal of Finance, 41:3; and Grossman, Sanford J., and Stiglitz, Joseph E. (1980), "On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets," in the June issue of the American Economic Review. 8 Please see Samuelson, Paul A. (1973), "Mathematics Of Speculative Price," in the January 1973 SIAM Review, 15:1. 9 Please see "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," published by BCA's Energy Sector Strategy on May 9, 2018, which discusses these production risks in depth. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. Stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. The strategy has worked well since the start of the year, and it is too early to exit. For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the economy provide a tradeable reversal in yields. The trade-weighted euro has some support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that can be priced out, while the ECB doesn't. We have a slight preference for the FTSE100 and S&P500 over the Eurostoxx50. Feature Entering the fifth month of the year, one puzzle for investors is the conflicting messages coming from banks and bonds. While banks' relative performance is close to its 2018 low, bond yields are not far from their year-to-date high (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekBanks Or Bonds: Which One Is Right? This poses a puzzle because the performances of banks and bond yields are usually joined at the hip. The underperformance of the economically sensitive banks would suggest that global growth is decelerating, whereas the performance of bond yields would suggest that global activity is holding up well. Which one is right? The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is Indisputably In A Mini-Downswing Looking at the other classically cyclical sectors, the mystery seems to deepen. Industrials and basic materials are also in very clear downtrends this year, which corroborates the message from the banks. But the oil and gas sector is close to a year high, which corroborates the message from bond yields (Charts I-2-I-4). Chart I-2Industrials Have Underperformed... Chart I-3...And Basic Materials Have Underperformed Chart I-4...But Oil And Gas Has Outperformed... The conflicting messages from banks, basic materials and industrials on one side and bond yields and oil and gas equities on the other side reflect the disconnect between non-oil commodity prices which have drifted lower this year and oil prices which have moved sharply higher (Chart I-5). This disconnect, resulting from differing supply dynamics in the different commodity markets, points us to a likely solution to our puzzle. Chart I-5...Because Oil Has Disconnected ##br##From Other Commodities The classically cyclical sectors are taking their cue from global growth and industrial activity, which does appear to be losing momentum. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. In contrast, bond yields are taking their cue from the oil price, given its major impact on headline inflation, inflation expectations, and thereby on central bank reaction functions. Based on previous mini-cycles, we can confidently say that mini-downswing phases last at least six to eight months and that the usual release valve is a decline in bond yields. In this regard, the apparent disconnect between decelerating activity and un-budging bond yields risks extending this mini-downswing phase. Therefore, for the next few months, it is appropriate to stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. The strategy has worked well since we initiated it at the start of the year, and it is too early to exit. This sector strategy necessarily impacts regional allocation as explained in the next section. For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the economy provide a natural cap and a tradeable reversal in yields. Even More Investment Reductionism Imagine a world in which all the global commodity firms decided to get their stock market listings in London; all the global financials decided to list on euro area bourses; all the major tech companies listed in New York; and all the industrials listed in Tokyo. Clearly, each major stock market would just be a play on its underlying global sector and nothing more. Our imagined world is an exaggeration, but it does illustrate an important truth. A quarter of the market capitalisation of each major stock market is in one dominant sector, and this gives each equity index its defining fingerprint: for the FTSE100 it is commodity firms; for the Eurostoxx50 it is financials; for the S&P500 it is technology; and for the Nikkei225 it is industrials (Table I-1). Table I-1Each Major Stock Market Has A Defining Fingerprint There is another important factor to consider: the currency. A global oil company like BP receives its revenue and incurs its costs in multiple major currencies, such as euros and dollars. In this sense, BP's global business is currency neutral. But BP's stock price is quoted in pounds. This means that if the pound strengthens, the company's multi-currency profits will decline relative to the stock price and weigh it down. Conversely, if the pound weakens, it will lift the BP stock price. So the currency is the channel through which the domestic economy can impact its stock market, albeit it is an inverse relationship: a strong currency hinders the stock market; a weak currency helps it. The upshot is that the defining fingerprints for the major indexes turn out to be: FTSE100: global commodity shares expressed in pounds. Eurostoxx50: global banks expressed in euros. S&P500: global technology expressed in dollars. Nikkei225: global industrials expressed in yen. And that's pretty much all you need to know for regional equity allocation! The charts in this report should leave you in no doubt. True to our Investment Reductionism philosophy, the relative performance of the regional equity indexes just reduces to their defining fingerprints: FTSE100 versus S&P500 reduces to global commodity companies in pounds versus global tech companies in dollars, Eurostoxx50 versus Nikkei225 reduces to global banks in euros versus global industrials in yen. And so on (Charts I-6-I-11). Chart I-6FTSE 100 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Commodity##br## Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-7FTSE 100 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Commodity ##br##Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-8FTSE 100 Vs. Euro Stoxx 50 = Global Commodity##br## Equities In Pounds Vs. Global Banks In Euros Chart I-9Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P 500 = Global Banks In ##br##Euros Vs. Global Tech In Dollars Chart I-10Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Banks In##br## Euros Vs. Global Industrials In Yen Chart I-11S&P 500 Vs. Nikkei 225 = Global Tech In ##br##Dollars Vs. Global Industrials In Yen The Right Way To Invest In The 21st Century One important implication of Investment Reductionism is that the head-to-head comparison of stock market valuations is a meaningless and potentially dangerous exercise. Two sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects - say, banks and technology - must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower valuation is not necessarily the better-valued sector. By extension, the stock market with the lower valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily the better-valued stock market. Another implication is that simple 'value' indexes may not actually offer better value! In reality, they comprise a collection of sectors on the lowest head-to-head valuations which, to repeat, does not necessarily make them better-valued. Some people suggest comparing a valuation with its own history, and assessing how many 'standard deviations' it is above or below its norm. The problem is that the whole concept of standard deviation assumes 'stationarity' - meaning, no step changes in a sector's valuation through time. Unfortunately, sector valuations are 'non-stationary': they undergo major step changes when they enter a vastly different economic climate. For example, the structural outlook for bank profits undergoes a step change when a credit boom ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a credit boom with the valuation during the credit boom is like comparing an apple with an orange. Pulling together these complexities of sector effects, currency effects, and step changes in sector valuations, we offer some strong advice on how to sequence the investment process: 1. Make your asset class decision at a global level. This is because asset classes tend to move as global entities, not regional entities. And also because at a global level, asset class valuation comparisons are less distorted by sector and currency effects. 2. Make your sector decisions. Given that the companies that dominate European (and all major) indexes are multinationals, the sector decision should be based on the direction of the global economy. 3. Make your currency decisions. 4. You do not need to make any more major decisions! The main regional equity allocation, country allocation and value/growth allocation just drop out from the sector and currency decision. With the global 6-month credit impulse now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase (Chart I-12), the classically cyclical sectors are likely to continue underperforming for the next few months; the rise in bond yields faces resistance; and the euro - at least on a trade-weighted basis - has some support given that the BoE and/or the Fed have tightening expectations that can be priced out, while the ECB doesn't. Chart I-12The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Is Indisputably In A Mini-Downswing Finally, in terms of regional equity allocation, Investment Reductionism implies a slight preference for the FTSE100 and S&P500 over the Eurostoxx50. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* In addition to the fundamental arguments in the main body of this report, fractal analysis finds that the outperformance of Oil and Gas relative to other commodity equities is technically extended. Hence, this week's trade recommendation is to underweight euro area Oil and Gas versus global Basic Materials. Set a profit target of 5%, with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report that long USD/ZAR hit its 6% profit target, and is now closed. This leaves us with five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Feature Chart of the WeekAg Vol Will Rise Over the coming three months markets will be zeroing in on spring planting in the U.S., looking for deviations from the USDA's March intentions report. This will occur against the cyclical backdrop of increased volatility, as markets attempt to price the real impact of Chinese tariffs (Chart of the Week). Putting aside fundamentals, U.S. financial conditions will be a headwind to ag prices this year. Longer term, despite the more favorable USD outlook, a slowdown in China, which accounts for ~ 20% of global food demand, could be bearish for ag prices. Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. crude oil output rose to a record 10.3mm b/d in February according to the U.S. EIA. U.S. crude production exceeded Saudi Arabia's in 1Q18; we expect it to exceed Russia's output of 11.2mm b/d by December, 2018. Base Metals: Neutral. Permanent waivers on steel and aluminum tariffs were granted to Australian, Argentine, and Brazilian imports by U.S. firms, while exemptions on imports from the EU, Canada and Mexico were extended to June 1. Precious Metals: Neutral. USD strength is weighing on gold and silver: Our long positions on both metals are down 3.0% and 6.2%, respectively, over the past two weeks. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Ag market volatility will increase, as markets assess U.S. spring planting progress against a backdrop of a possible trade war in ags between the U.S. and China (see below). Feature All Eyes On U.S. Planting Progress It is a busy time of year for U.S. farmers as spring planting is underway. Based on the USDA's annual Prospective Planting Report, released end-March, corn and soybean plantings will fall 2% y/y and 1% y/y, respectively. If realized, corn planted area in the 2018/19 crop year will be the lowest since 2015, and, for only the second time in the history of the series, will fall behind soybean acreage (Chart 2). The USDA's survey also indicates U.S. corn and soybeans will lose ground to wheat, where farmers intend to expand acreage by 3%. Even so, wheat planting intentions are the second lowest on record since the beginning of the series in 1919, surpassed only by last year's all-time low. Mother Nature is not co-operating either: unseasonably cold and wet weather is hindering planting this spring (Table 1). Planting of corn and spring wheat are significantly behind average for this time of the year. Similarly, heading of winter wheat - which accounts for ~ 70% of total wheat intentions - is also behind schedule. Furthermore, harsh winter weather reduced the condition of almost 40% of the crop to poor or very poor, with only 33% qualifying as good or excellent, compared to last year's assessment of 13% and 54%, respectively. Chart 2U.S. Soybean Acreage To Surpass Corn In 2018/19 Table 1U.S. Farmers Are Behind Schedule Weather-related delays are less of a risk for soybean plantings, which begin and end later in the summer. Progress is currently in line with historical averages, and, since farmers have an additional month of planting compared to corn and wheat, it is possible they will opt to switch their unplanted corn and wheat acreage to beans. This is a downside risk to the soybean market: When all is said and done, June soybean acreage may exceed targets indicated in the USDA's March intentions report. Although farmers' current lack of headway on the fields is cause for concern, it is still possible that farmers will be able to catch up, attaining their targeted acreage. A Backdrop Of Falling Inventories The termination of China's corn stockpiling scheme, which, prior to 2016 led to the rapid buildup of domestic inventories, was accompanied by policies designed to incentivize soybean plantings over corn. In the case of corn, these policies have paid off. By the end of the current crop year we expect the drawdown in Chinese inventories - along with U.S. stockpiles - to drag world corn reserves lower for the first time since 2010/11 (Chart 3).1 China's pro-soybean production policy is expected to yield a 1.1% expansion in the oilseed's planting area, leading to a 12.8% increase in output this crop year. Regardless, domestic inventories expressed in stocks-to-use (STU) terms are projected to fall (Chart 4). Similarly, world soybean reserves will contract on the back of a decline in Argentine output, which will lead to the largest - and one of only three on record - soybean deficits in the domestic market. In the case of wheat, although U.S. output is forecast to come down this year, weighing on domestic inventories, global markets remain well supplied (Chart 5). In fact, even though USDA's monthly revisions to U.S. production have been downward, forecasts of total use also were revised down. This means the net impact on the balance will be a wider-than-expected surplus. In the case of global markets, world wheat STU ratio will increase to levels last seen in 1986. Net, despite unfavorable weather weighing on the quality and quantity of U.S. wheat crops, there is no shortage of wheat in the world, unlike corn and soybeans. Chart 3Corn Deficit Eating##BR##Away At Stockpiles Chart 4China STU Falls Despite##BR##Pro-Soybean Policies Chart 5Global Wheat Markets Well Supplied##BR##Amid U.S. Supply Concerns Bottom Line: Given the slower-than-average planting progress this year, near term prices will likely reflect developments in the U.S., as farmers rush to get the crops in the ground. While winter wheat appears to be of poor quality this year, corn and spring wheat plantings are significantly behind schedule. This raises the risk that their acreages will be abandoned in favor of soybeans, which has a later planting window. All in all, if the June acreage report aligns with farmers' planting intentions, we expect to see an increase in wheat acreage at the expense of corn and soybean, which will provide some supply relief to domestic wheat markets. U.S. Farmers Less Competitive, Especially In Soybean Markets In theory, China's announced plans to levy duties on U.S. ag imports puts U.S. farmers - part of President Trump's base - at a disadvantage. But, reality may not be as bearish. The outcome hinges on whether the U.S. will be able to ramp up its exports to other markets amid declining imports from the top bean consumer. Given the impact of weather on soybean output in Argentina - where drought cut soybean output by 30% y/y - there will be a void in global supply. Since soybeans are fungible, we expect ex-China demand to remain supported on the back of limited global supply. This will provide an opportunity for the U.S. to export its surplus, at least in this crop year. To date, there appears to be some evidence of this. Domestic supply will be insufficient to cover Argentinian consumption this year (Chart 6). In an unusual move, USDA export sales data shows Argentina booked a 240k MT purchase of U.S. soybeans for delivery in the next marketing year. Argentina traditionally is a net exporter of soybeans. While we expect tariffs to reshuffle trade flows as China attempts to ensure supplies while avoiding U.S. soybeans, the net effect in terms of global demand for U.S. soybeans may not be as bearish as is feared. China simply does not have the domestic supply to satisfy its demands for beans. While opting for Brazilian or Argentinian beans may be way around importing U.S. supplies, this will open up other export opportunities for the U.S. variety, leading to a simple restructuring of trade flows.2 Recent declines in Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans amid growing imports from Brazil have been cited as evidence of a gloomy future for U.S. soybean farmers. However, this phenomenon is part of the Chinese import cycle: Brazilian soybeans flood Chinese markets in the second and third quarters, while American supplies flow in during the last and first quarters of any given year (Chart 7). Furthermore, U.S. soybean imports have been on the downtrend since the middle of last year. Thus, this observation alone does not signal a change in trend. Chart 6Weak Argentine Output##BR##Restrict Global Supplies Chart 7Chinese Preference For Brazilian Beans##BR##Typical For This Time Of Year In fact, the premium paid for Brazilian beans over those traded in Chicago spiked earlier last month. Although it has since come down slightly, it suggests Chinese consumers will have to bear the brunt of more expensive imports. Furthermore, this makes U.S. beans relatively cheaper - and more attractive - in the global market. All the same, higher costs may entice Chinese consumers to look at adjusting the feed formula by diversifying the source of feed. Although our baseline scenario is that these tariffs will remain in place, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lightizer's trip to Beijing may be the opening salvo to less hostile trade developments. If this is the case, we would expect these trade-related risks to ease. Bottom Line: Tariffs on U.S. soybean imports to China are, in theory, bearish for U.S. markets. However, China's reliance on these beans, along with a tight market this year, makes the outlook less gloomy. Courses of action that may be pursued by China are (1) diversifying the source of the bean, (2) reducing demand for the bean by adjusting feed formula, and (3) continuing to raise domestic soybean acreage. Given the cyclical nature of China's soybean imports, we are entering a period of naturally low demand for U.S. soybeans. Thus, we will not likely see the real impact of current trade disputes until China's demand for American beans kicks in again in 4Q18. In the meantime, a global deficit will open up alternative opportunities for U.S. exports. U.S. And Foreign Financial Conditions Drive Long Run Outlook As weather and the on-going trade tensions between the U.S. and China evolve, the U.S. financial backdrop - particularly real interest rates and the broad USD trade-weighted index (TWIB) - will remain crucial to ag markets. In line with BCA Research's House View, we expect Fed rate hikes to exceed those of other central banks, providing support to a stronger USD over the next 12 months. This will weigh on ag prices.3 Chinese economic growth also could figure prominently, based on recent research from the CME Group, which operates the world's benchmark grain futures markets.4 The relationship between China's unofficial economic gauge - the Li Keqiang Index (LKI) - and ag prices appear to operate through the currency channel. A weaker Chinese economy - reflected in the LKI - suppresses industrial commodity demand, which ends up weighing on the currencies of major commodity exporters. This means the local costs of production for these exporters fall, which, with a 1- to 2-year lag, incentivizes crop plantings in these regions. The increased supply at the margin is bearish for ag prices, all else equal. Given the current environment of a slowing Chinese economy, this relationship is relevant to the longer-term outlook. The significance of the LKI in our grains models provides some evidence of this relationship (Chart 8). When applying the analysis to Brazilian and Russian ag markets, we find the LKI to be positively correlated with the Brazilian Real and the Russian Ruble. This, in turn, explains the inverse correlation we find between the LKI and future ag production in these two markets (Chart 9). A weaker domestic currency does appear to entice farmers to increase plantings of ag commodities, allowing them to take advantage of greater local currency profits from USD-denominated ag exports. Chart 8China Slowdown May Weigh Down On Ags... Chart 9...By Incentivizing Production Bottom Line: This preliminary analysis uncovers a supply side channel through which China may impact global ag supplies. It implies that a slowing Chinese economy may in effect spur greater global ag supplies, eventually weighing down on ag prices. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Despite the increase in domestic supply amid greater offerings of state reserves, much of the state corn stocks are reportedly in poor condition, only suitable as a source for ethanol production - cited as the justification for upward revisions to corn consumption this year. As such, imports will likely remain indispensable. Overall it appears that China intends to raise its industrial consumption of corn in order to digest its stockpiles, with limited impact on prices. Late last year, China announced its target of nationwide use of bioethanol gasoline by 2020. It estimates that corn stockpiles are sufficient to meet near term demand for the grain used as the ingredient in E10, and hopes to achieve a physical corn market balance within five years. 2 Please see the Ags/Softs back section titled "Can China Retaliate With Agriculture," in BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 For a more detailed discussion of the impact of U.S. financial variables on ag markets, please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Global Financial Conditions Will Drive Grain Prices In 2018," dated November 30, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Will A Sino-U.S. Trade War Impact Grain, Meat Markets?" dated March 28, 2018, available at cmegroup.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Highlights Our constraints-based methodology does not rely on human intelligence or the "rumor mill" to analyze political risks; Yet insights from our travels across the U.S., including inside the Beltway, offer interesting background information and a sense of the general pulse; Anecdotal information suggests that Trump is not "normalizing" in office; that U.S.-China relations will get worse before they get better; and that Trump will walk away from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal. Stick to our current trades: energy over industrial metals; South Korean bull steepener; long DXY; long DM equities versus EM; long JPY/EUR; short Chinese tech stocks and U.S. S&P500 China-exposed stocks. Feature With the third inter-Korean summit demonstrating our view that "diplomacy is on track,"1 we remind investors of the key geopolitical risks we have been emphasizing - souring U.S.-China relations and rising geopolitical risks over Iran's role in the Middle East.2 We at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy do not base our analysis on information from human "intelligence" sources. No private enterprise can obtain the volume of intelligence that would make the sample statistically significant. Private political analysts relying on such intelligence are at best using flawed reasoning devoid of an analytical framework, and at worst are hucksters. Government intelligence agencies obviously collect a wide swath of not only human but also electronic and signals intelligence. Their sample can be statistically significant. However, the cost of such an effort is prohibitive to the private sector. Nonetheless, we may use human intelligence for background information, insight into how to improve our framework, and to take the subjective pulse of any particular situation. The latter is sometimes the most useful. It is not what a policymaker says that matters so much as how they say it, or the fact that they mention the subject at all. Given that we live in an era of political paradigm shifts, and that "charismatic leadership" is rising in influence relative to more predictable, established institutions and systems,3 we have decided to do something we have not done in the past: share some insights from our recent trips to Washington, DC and elsewhere in the U.S. Caveat emptor: the rumor mill is often wildly misleading, which is why we do not base our research on it. Exhibit A: Donald Trump's tax cuts, which our constraints-based methodology enabled us to predict in spite of the prognostications of in-the-know people throughout the year.4 Trump Is Not Normalizing U.S. domestic politics is the top concern of investors, policymakers, and policy wonks almost everywhere we go. It routinely ranks above concerns about Russia, China, the Middle East, or emerging markets (EM). We frequently heard that the U.S. is entering a period of political turmoil worse than anything since President Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. Some old Washington hands even claim that the Trump era will cause even greater uncertainty than the Nixon era did because Congress is allegedly less willing to keep the president in check. Economic policy uncertainty, based on newspaper word count, is at least comparable today to the tumultuous 1973-74 period, which culminated with Nixon's resignation in August 1974, and is trending upward (Chart 1). Chart 1Trump Uncertainty Approaching Nixon Levels? Of course, there is a big difference between Trump's and Nixon's context: today the economy is not going through a recession but rip-roaring ahead, charged with Trump's tax cuts and a bipartisan spending splurge. And the nation is not in the midst of a large-scale and deeply divisive war (not yet, anyway). There is little chance of major new legislation this year, yet deregulation, particularly financial deregulation, will continue to pad corporate earnings and grease the wheels of the economy. The booming economy is lifting Trump's approval ratings, which are trying to converge to the average of previous presidents at this stage in their terms (Chart 2). This development poses the single biggest risk to the unanimous opinion in DC that Republicans face a "Blue Wave" (Democratic Party sweep) in the midterm elections on November 6. However, a key support of the "Blue Wave" theory is that Republicans are split among themselves - and no one in the Washington swamp will deny it. Pro-business, establishment Republicans have never trusted Trump. They are retiring in droves rather than face up to either populist challengers in the Republican primary elections this summer or enthusiastic "anti-Trump" Democrats and independents in the general election (Chart 3).5 Chart 2Is Trump's Stimulus Bump Over? Chart 3GOP Retirements Are Unprecedented Trump is expected to ignite a constitutional crisis by firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the man leading the investigation into the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia. Republicans are widely against firing Mueller, but they are not united in legislating against it, leaving Trump unconstrained. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) says he will not allow consideration on the Senate floor of a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee that would protect Mueller from firing.6 If Trump fires Mueller, Democrats expect a political earthquake. Some think that mass protests, and mass counter-protests encouraged by Trump himself, will culminate in violence. (We would expect protests to be mostly limited to activists, but obviously violent incidents are probable at mass rallies with opposing sides.) The Democrats are widely expected to take the House of Representatives; most observers are on the fence about the Senate. The House is enough to impeach Trump, which is widely expected to occur, by hook or by crook. But the impact on the country's political polarization will be much worse if there is impeachment without "smoking gun" evidence against Trump's person. Nixon, recall, refused to hand over evidence (the Watergate tapes) under a court order. When he handed some tapes over, they emitted a suspicious buzzing sound at critical points in the recording. Public opinion turned against him, prompting his party to abandon ship. He resigned because the loss of party support made him unlikely to survive impeachment. By contrast, there is not yet any comparable missing or doctored evidence in Trump's case, nor any sinkhole in Republican opinion that would presage a 67-vote conviction in the Senate (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Not Yet In Nixon's Shoes Still, clouds are on the horizon. When people raise concerns about geopolitical issues - the U.S.-Russia confrontation, or the potential for a trade war with China - their starting point is uncertainty about President Donald Trump and his administration's policies. The United States is seen as the chief source of political risk in the world. Bottom Line: People in the Beltway who were once willing to believe that Trump would learn on the job and become "normalized" in office now seem to be shifting to the view that he is truly an unorthodox, and potentially reckless, president. The New (Aggressive) Consensus On China China is in the air like never before in D.C. In policy circles, the striking thing is the near unanimity of the disenchantment with China. Republicans are angry with China over trade and national security. Democrats are not to be outdone, having long been angry with China over trade, and also labor issues and human rights violations. It seems that everyone in the government and bureaucracy, liberal or conservative, is either demanding a tougher policy on China or resigned to its inevitability. American officials flatly reject the view that the Trump administration is instigating a conflict with China that destabilizes the world economy. Rather they insist that China has already instigated the conflict and caused destabilizing global imbalances through its mercantilist policies. They firmly believe that the U.S. can and should disrupt the status quo in order to change China's behavior, but that no one wants a trade war. They believe that the U.S. can be aggressive without causing things to spiral out of control. This could be a problem, as we detect a similar hardening of sentiment in China. On our travels there, the attitude was one of defiance toward Trump and Washington. We have received assurances that Beijing will not simply fold, no matter how much pain is incurred from trade measures. Of course, it is in China's interest to bluster in order to deter the U.S. from tariffs. But Chinese policymakers may be ready to sustain greater damage than Washington or the investment community expects. Tech companies are particularly out of the loop with Washington. They are said to have been unprepared for the president's actions upon receiving the Section 301 investigation results. They may also be underestimating the product list that the U.S. Trade Representative has drawn up pursuant to Section 301.7 Even products on that list that are not imported directly from China could have their trade disrupted. While China is demanding that the U.S. ease restrictions on high-tech exports, to reduce the trade imbalance (Chart 5), the U.S. believes that export controls allow for plenty of waivers and exceptions. They do not see export controls as a major risk. Chart 5U.S. Deficit Due To Security Concerns Rather, they see rising U.S. restrictions on Chinese investment in the U.S. as the real risk. The U.S. wants reciprocity in investment as well as trade. The emphasis lies on fair and equal access, which will require massive compromises from China, given its practice of walling off "strategic" sectors (including aviation, energy, electricity, shipping, and communications) from foreign interests. China's recent pledges to allow foreigners majority stakes in financial companies may not be enough to pacify the U.S. negotiators, especially if the promises hinge on long-term implementation. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin will cause a stir when he releases his guidelines for investment restrictions, as expected by May 21 under the president's declaration on the Section 301 probe (Table 1).8 Both the House of Representatives and Senate are expected, within a couple of months, to pass the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R, TX) and Representative Robert Pittenger (R, NC). This bill would grant greater powers to the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in conducting investigations into foreign investment deals with national security ramifications. Under the new law CFIUS will be able to review proposed investment deals on grounds that go beyond a strict reading of national security. They will now include economic security, and potential sectoral impacts as well as individual corporate impacts, and previously neglected issues like intellectual property.9 Trump is unlikely to veto the bill, as previous presidents have done when laws cracking down on China have passed Congress, given his desire to shake up the China relationship. Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Will CFIUS enforcement truly intensify? Treasury's actions may preempt the bill, and CFIUS has already been subjecting China to greater scrutiny for years (Chart 6). Moreover, American presidents have always canceled investment deals if CFIUS advised against them.10 Presumably broadening CFIUS's powers will result in a wider range of deals struck down. The government already stopped Broadcom, a Singaporean company, from taking over the U.S. firm Qualcomm, in March, for reasons that have more to do with R&D and competitiveness (economic security) than with any military applications of its technologies (national security). Separately, U.S. policy elites are starting to turn their sights toward China's global propaganda and psychological operations. The scandal over the Communist Party's subversive institutional and political influence in Australia has heightened concerns in other Western, especially Anglo-Saxon, countries.11 This is a new trend that will have bigger implications going forward in Western civil society and the business community, with state efforts to create firewalls against Chinese state intrusion exacerbating political and trade tensions. Australians have the most favorable view of China in the West, and on the whole they continue to see China in a positive light. However, this view will likely sour this year. The recent attempt by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to pass legislation guarding against Communist Party interference in Australian politics has already led to a series of diplomatic incidents, including tensions over the South China Sea and Pacific Islands. These can get worse in the near future. Consistently, over 40% of Australians view China as "likely" to become a military threat over the next 20 years (Chart 7), and this number will worsen if attempts to safeguard democratic institutions from state-backed influence operations cause China to retaliate with punitive measures toward Australia. China is offering some concessions to counteract the new, aggressive consensus in Washington. Enforcing UN sanctions against North Korea was the big turn. But it is also allowing the RMB to appreciate against the USD (Chart 8), which is an issue close to Trump's heart. The change in temperature in Washington can be measured by the fact that these concessions seem to be taken for granted while the discussion moves onto other demands like trade and investment reciprocity. Chart 6U.S. To Restrict Chinese Investment Chart 7Australian Fears About China To Rise Chart 8Is This Enough To Stay Trump's Hand On Tariffs? Simultaneously, China is courting Europe. European policymakers say that they share U.S. concerns about China's trade practices but wish to resolve disputes through the World Trade Organization and reject unilateral American actions or aggressive punitive measures that could harm global stability. Meanwhile China hopes that American policy toward Iran and the Middle East will alienate the Europeans while distracting Washington from formulating a coherent pivot to Asia. Bottom Line: Investors are underestimating the potential for a full-blown trade war. Policymakers - in China as well as the U.S. - have greater appetite for confrontation. Iran: Reversing Obama's Legacy The financial news media continue to underrate the importance of geopolitical risk tied to Iran this year (Chart 9). Our sense is that the Trump administration, when in doubt, is still biased towards reversing Obama-era policy on any given issue. Iranian nuclear deal of 2015 appears to be no exception. Chart 9Iranian Geopolitical Risk About to Shoot Up Signs have emerged for months that Trump is likely to refuse to waive Iranian sanctions (Table 2) when the renewal comes due on May 12. He has fired his national security adviser and secretary of state, as well as lesser officials, in preference for Iran hawks.12 French President Emmanuel Macron, having tried to convince Trump to retain the deal on his recent state visit to Washington, is apparently convinced Trump will scrap it.13 Table 2U.S. Sanctions Have Global Reach Moreover, discussions of Iran mark the one exception to the hardening consensus on China. A number of people we spoke with were not convinced that the Trump administration will truly devote the main thrust of its foreign policy to countering China. Some believed U.S. voters did not have the stomach for a trade fight that would affect their pocketbooks. Others believed that the Trump administration would simply revert to a more traditional Republican foreign policy, accepting a "quick win" on China trade while pursuing a confrontational military posture in the Persian Gulf. Still others believed that Trump has unique reasons, such as political weakness at home and the desire to be respected abroad, for wanting to be in lock-step with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman against Iran. All agreed that while a shift to China makes strategic sense, it may not overrule Republican policy preferences or inertia. The stakes are high. Allowing sanctions to snap back into place would affect a substantial portion of the one million barrels per day of oil that Iran has brought onto global markets since sanctions were eased in January 2016 (Chart 10). Chart 10Re-Imposing Iranian Sanctions Threatens Oil Supply And Middle East Stability As BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy notes, global oil supply is tight and the critical driver - emerging market demand - remains strong. Meanwhile the "OPEC 2.0" cartel plans to extend production cuts throughout 2018 and likely into 2019, further draining global inventories. Inventories are now on track to fall beneath their 2010-14 average level by next year. In this context, the geopolitical risk premium will add to upside oil price risks this year. Our commodity strategists still expect oil prices to average $70-$74 per barrel this year (WTI and Brent respectively), but they can see it shooting above $80 per barrel on occasion, and warn that even small supply disruptions (whether from Iran, Venezuela, Libya, or elsewhere) could send prices even higher (Chart 11).14 Chart 11Oil Prices Can Make Runs Into /Barrel Range If the U.S. re-imposes sanctions on Iran, we doubt that the full one million barrels per day of post-sanctions Iranian production will be taken offline. Global compliance with sanctions will be ineffective this time around. The Trump administration's sanctions will not have the legitimacy or buy-in that the Obama administration's sanctions did. Trump may even intend to impose the sanctions for domestic political consumption while giving Europe, Japan, and others a free pass. Still, the geopolitical and production impact will be significant. As for oil, price overshoots are even more likely when one considers Venezuela, where our oil analysts estimate that state collapse will remove around 500,000 barrel per day from last year's average by the end of this year.15 Bottom Line: We continue to expect energy commodities to outperform metals in an environment where energy prices benefit from a rising geopolitical risk premium, while metals could suffer from ongoing risks to Chinese growth. Investment Conclusions Independently of the above anecdotes, Geopolitical Strategy has laid out a case urging clients to sell in May and go away.16 Last year we were confident recommending that clients forget this old adage because we had clarity on the geopolitical risks and their constraints. This year, with both China and Iran, we lack that clarity. The U.S.'s European allies could perhaps convince Trump to maintain the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement, and Trump could perhaps accept China's concessions (such as they are) to get a "quick win" on the trade front before the midterm elections. But we have no basis for assessing that he will do either with any degree of conviction. How long will it take to resolve the raft of outstanding U.S.-Iran and U.S.-China tensions? Our uncertainty here gives us a high conviction view that this summer will be turbulent. Geopolitical tensions will likely get worse before they get better. We would reiterate our recommendation that clients be long DXY and hold a "geopolitical protector portfolio" of Swiss bonds and gold. We remain long developed market equities relative to emerging markets and long JPY/EUR. We are also maintaining our shorts on Chinese tech stocks and U.S. stocks exposed to China. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Jordain Carney, "McConnell: Senate won't take up Mueller protection bill," April 17, 2018, available at thehill.com. 7 Please see U.S. Trade Representative, "Under Section 301 Action, USTR Releases Proposed Tariff List on Chinese Products," and "USTR Robert Lighthizer Statement on the President's Additional Section 301 Action," dated April 3 and April 5, 2018, available at ustr.gov. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Senator Jon Cornyn, "S.2098 - Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017," dated Nov. 8, 2017, available at www.congress.gov. For the argument behind the bill, see Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein, "FIRRMA Act will give Committee on Foreign Investment a needed update," The Hill, dated March 21, 2018, available at thehill.com. 10 Please see Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, "CFIUS In 2017: A Momentous Year," 2018, available at www.wsgr.com. 11 Australian Senator Sam Dastyari (Labor Party) resigned on December 11, 2017 after it was exposed that he accepted cash donations from a Chinese property developer that he used to repay his own debts. He had also supported China's position in the South China Sea. The scandal prompted revelations of a range of Chinese state-linked political donations. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has introduced legislation banning foreign political donations and forcing lobbyists for foreign countries to register. 12 Mike Pompeo replaced Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, John Bolton replaced H.R. McMaster as National Security Adviser, and Chief of Staff John Kelly has been sidelined; Bolton has appointed Mira Ricardel as his deputy, who has been said to clash with Secretary of Defense James Mattis in trying to staff the Pentagon with Trump loyalists. Please see Niall Stanage, "The Memo: Nationalists gain upper hand in Trump's White House," The Hill, April 25, 2018, available at thehill.com. 13 Macron has presented a framework that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May have accepted that would call for improvements to outstanding issues with Iran while keeping the 2015 deal intact. Macron has also spoken with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani about retaining the deal while addressing the Trump administration's grievances. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," dated April 19, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see footnote 14, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar
Looking Beyond The Next Few Months The next couple of months could remain tricky for equity markets. But, with economic growth set to remain above trend for another year or so and central banks cautious about the pace of monetary tightening, we continue to expect risk assets to outperform over the 12-month horizon. To begin, our short-term concerns. Global growth has clearly slowed in recent months, with Q1 U.S. GDP growth coming in at 2.3%, well below the 2.9% in Q4; global PMIs have also come down from their recent peaks, led by the euro zone and Japan (Chart 1). Inflation has begun to spook investors, with a sharp pick-up in core U.S. inflation, including a rise to 1.9% YoY in the core PCE inflation measure that the Fed watches most closely (Chart 2). Geopolitics will dominate the headlines over the next six weeks, with the waiver on Iran sanctions expiring on May 12, the end of the 60-day consultation for U.S. tariffs on China on May 21, the possible imposition of tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods starting on June 4, and likely developments with North Korea and NAFTA. Recommended Allocation Chart 1Global Growth Has Slowed Chart 2...And Inflation Picked Up Investors inclined to make short-term tactical shifts might, therefore, want to reduce risk over the next one to three months. For most clients of the Global Asset Allocation service with a longer perspective, however, we continue to recommend an overweight on equities and other risk assets. In the U.S., in particular, fiscal stimulus will, according to IMF estimates, boost GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points this year and 0.9 percentage points next (Chart 3). U.S. corporate earnings should grow by almost 20% this year and around 12% next and, while this is already in analysts' forecasts, it is hard to imagine equity markets struggling against such a strong backdrop. Not one of the recession/bear market warning signals we are watching (inverted yield curve, rising credit spreads, Fed policy in restrictive territory, significant decline in PMIs, peak in cyclical spending) is yet flashing. Neither do we see any signs that higher interest rates or expensive energy prices are slowing growth. Lead indicators of capex have come off a little, but still point to robust growth (Chart 4). The housing market tends to be the most vulnerable to rising rates and the average rate on a 30-year U.S. fixed mortgage has risen to 4.5% (from 3.7% at the start of the year and a low of 3.3% in late 2016). But housing data still look strong, with a continued rise in house prices and mortgage applications steady (Chart 5). Perhaps the sector most vulnerable to rising U.S. rates in this cycle is emerging markets, where borrowers have grown foreign-currency debt to $3.2 trillion, according to the BIS - one reason for our longstanding caution on EM assets (Chart 6). With crude oil rising to $75 a barrel, U.S. retail gasoline prices now average $2.80 a gallon, up from below $2 in 2016, and transportation companies are complaining of rising costs. But, historically, oil prices have needed to rise by 100% YoY before they triggered recession (Chart 7). Chart 3U.S. Stimulus Will Boost The Economy Chart 4Capex Remains Robust Chart 5No Signs Of Higher Rates Hurting Housing Chart 6Could EM Be Most Affected By Higher Rates? Chart 7Oil Hasn't Risen Enough To Cause Recession Eventually, however, strong growth, especially in the U.S., will become a headwind for risk assets. There is still some slack in the labor market, with another 500,000 people likely to return to work eventually (Chart 8). When that happens, perhaps early next year, the currently sluggish wage growth will begin to accelerate. Fiscal stimulus is likely to prove inflationary, since it is unprecedented for a government to stimulate the economy so aggressively when it is already close to full capacity (Chart 9). These factors will push inflation expectations back to their equilibrium level, and the market will then need to adjust to the Fed accelerating the pace of rate hikes to choke off inflation, which will push up real bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 8Still 500,000 Who Could Return To Work Chart 9Stimulus Unprecedented In Such A Strong Economy Chart 10Eventually Real Rates Will Need To Rise When that starts to happen - perhaps late this year or early next year - the yield curve will invert, and investors will start to price in the next recession. That will be the time to turn defensive, but it is still too early now. Fixed Income: Markets are currently pricing only a 50% probability of three more Fed hikes this year, and only two hikes next year. As markets start to anticipate further tightening, long rates are also likely to rise (Chart 11). We see 10-year U.S. Treasury yields at 3.3-3.5% by year-end, and so recommend an overweight in TIPs and a short duration position. The ECB is unlikely to need to rush rate hikes, however, given the slack in the euro zone (Chart 12), and so the spread between U.S. and core euro yields should widen further. Corporate credit spreads are unlikely to contract further but, as long as growth continues, we see U.S. high-yield bonds, in particular, providing attractive returns within the fixed-income bucket. Our bond strategists find that between the 2/10 yield curve crossing below 50 BP and its inverting, high-yield debt has since 1980 given an annualized 368 BP of excess return.1 Chart 11Fed Expectations Drive Long Rates Chart 12Still Plenty Of Slack In The Euro Zone Equities: Our preference remains for developed equities over emerging, and for more cyclical, higher-beta markets such as euro zone and Japan. The risk of a stronger yen over the coming months is a concern for Japanese equities in local currency terms but, as our recommendations are expressed in U.S. dollars, the currency effect cancels out, and so we keep our overweight for now. At this stage of the cycle our preference is for value stocks (especially financials) over growth stocks (especially IT): value/growth usually performs in line with cyclicals/defensives, but the relationship has moved out of sync in the past year or so (Chart 13), mostly because of the performance of internet stocks, whose premium valuation makes them very vulnerable to any bad news. Currencies: A widening of interest-rate differentials between the U.S. and euro zone is likely to push down the euro against the U.S. dollar over the next few months, especially given how crowded the long-euro trade has become. The vulnerability of EM currencies to rising U.S. rates has been seen in the past few weeks, with sharp falls in currencies such as the Turkish lira, Brazilian real, and Russian ruble. We expect this to continue. Overall, we expect a moderate appreciation of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Commodities: The crude oil price continues to rise in line with our forecasts, and we expect to see Brent crude above $80 a barrel before the end of the year. The price next year will depend on whether the OPEC agreement is extended, and how much U.S. shale oil production reacts to the higher price. On the assumption of a moderate increase in supply from both OPEC and the U.S., the crude price is likely to fall back moderately in 2019. We see the long-term equilibrium crude price in the $55-65 range, the level where global supply can be increased enough to satisfy around 1.5% annual growth in demand. We remain more cautious on industrial commodities, and see the first signs coming through of a slowdown in China, which will dent demand (Chart 14). Chart 13Value Stocks Look Attractive Chart 14Signs Of China Slowing Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt," dated 24 April, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation
Highlights Bond Bear Market: TIPS breakeven inflation rates are still below target, and this gives us high conviction that Treasury yields will increase on a cyclical horizon. If we assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate is approximately 3%, then the cyclical peak for the 10-year Treasury yield will likely occur between 3.35% and 3.52%. Interest Sensitive Spending: The robust performance of the cyclical sectors of the economy suggests that monetary policy remains accommodative. When growth in these interest rate-sensitive sectors starts to slow it will be a good signal that we are approaching the cyclical peak in Treasury yields. Bond Yields & Gold: A breakout to a significantly higher gold price could signal that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised up, suggesting a much higher cyclical peak for Treasury yields. Feature Chart 1The Bear Is Back After a brief pause in March, the cyclical bond bear market has resumed. The 10-year Treasury yield even briefly broke above 3% last week, with its 27 basis point rise off the early-April lows evenly split between the compensation for inflation protection and the 10-year real yield (Chart 1). To mark the occasion of the 10-year Treasury yield breaking above 3% for the first time since early 2014, this week we update our roadmap for the Two-Stage Cyclical Bond Bear Market, which we first outlined in late February.1 Specifically, we consider the questions of where the 10-year Treasury yield might be by the end of this year, and where it might ultimately peak for the cycle. On the second question we think bond investors can glean important information from trends in the price of gold. Tracking The Two-Stage Bear Market In our report from February we described how the cyclical Treasury bear market will proceed in two stages. The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations. Stage 1: The Re-Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sit at 2.17% and 2.25%, respectively. Historically, when core inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target, both of those breakeven rates have traded in a range between 2.3% and 2.5% (Chart 2). This means that nominal Treasury yields still have room to rise as the market prices in a more realistic outlook for inflation. That could happen sooner rather than later. Core PCE inflation increased 0.15% in March, causing the 12-month rate of change to jump from 1.57% to 1.88% (Chart 2, bottom panel). Meanwhile, the annualized 3-month and 6-month rates of change remain well above the Fed's 2% target. Looking further out, we see inflationary pressures continuing to build in the U.S. economy. The employment data now clearly show very little slack in the labor market, and this appears to be finally filtering through to wages. The Employment Cost Index for Wages & Salaries rose 0.9% in the first quarter, its largest quarterly increase since 2007. The year-over-year growth rate in the index moved up to 2.7%, from 2.6% in Q4, and is right in line with its predicted value based on the prime age employment-to-population ratio (Chart 3).2 Chart 2Stage 1 Almost Complete Chart 3Faster Wage Growth Ahead As long as TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below our target range we have high conviction that Treasury yields will increase, driven by a re-anchoring of inflation expectations. Once our TIPS breakeven target is met, the cyclical bond bear market will transition to stage two. Stage 2: The Terminal Fed Funds Rate After inflation expectations are re-anchored around the Fed's target, the most important question for bond investors becomes: How high will the Fed need to lift the policy rate to keep inflation from moving well above target? Or alternatively: What is the terminal (or peak) fed funds rate for this cycle (see Box)? Box: The Terminal Fed Funds Rate & The Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate Please note that in this report we refer to two separate, though related, concepts. We define the terminal fed funds rate as the peak fed funds rate for the business cycle. We also define the equilibrium fed funds rate as the fed funds rate that is consistent with neither an accommodative nor a restrictive monetary policy. The terminal fed funds rate is almost certainly higher than the equilibrium fed funds rate because monetary policy will likely turn restrictive before the end of the economic cycle. Chart 4Treasury Yield Models We can show why this question is so important using a simple model of Treasury yields based on expectations for changes in the fed funds rate and the MOVE index of implied rate volatility. The latter is a proxy for the term premium embedded in Treasury yields (Chart 4). For example, if we assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate - the rate consistent with neither accommodative nor restrictive monetary policy - is approximately 3%, and that by the end of this year the yield curve will price in a return to neutral monetary policy by the end of 2019. That would be consistent with a 10-year Treasury yield between 3.03% and 3.19% by the end of this year, assuming also that the MOVE index ranges between its current level and its historical low. This result can be seen in Table 1 by looking at the rows consistent with three rate hikes in 2018 and a 12-month discounter of 75 bps by year end. We could also assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate is 3%, but that the market will start to price in a restrictive monetary policy by the end of 2019 - i.e. a fed funds rate above its equilibrium level. That result would be consistent with a 10-year Treasury yield between 3.35% and 3.52% by the end of this year, once again assuming that the MOVE index ranges between its current level and its historical low. The bottom line is that with TIPS breakeven inflation rates still below target, we have high conviction that yields will increase on a cyclical horizon. Beyond that, if we assume that a 3% fed funds rate is roughly consistent with a neutral monetary policy stance, then we should expect the cyclical peak in the 10-year Treasury yield to be in a range between 3.35% and 3.52%. Tracking The Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate Using Nominal GDP And Gold It's worth pointing out that both examples in the prior section assumed that the MOVE index will either stay flat or decline. The reason for that assumption is that both examples assume a relatively low equilibrium fed funds rate of 3%. In other words, both examples assume that monetary policy will turn restrictive once the fed funds rate moves above 3%, causing economic growth to slow. If that assumption proves to be correct, and with the 10-year Treasury yield already close to 3%, the yield curve will undoubtedly flatten as the fed funds rate is raised. A flatter yield curve is highly correlated with lower implied rate volatility. In order for implied rate volatility to move meaningfully higher, and for us to see a much higher 10-year Treasury yield (as is shown in the bottom third of Table 1), the market will need to start discounting a higher equilibrium fed funds rate. Put differently, investors would have to believe that the fed funds rate necessary to slow economic growth and inflation is much higher than 3%. It is only in that scenario that the cyclical peak for the 10-year Treasury yield will significantly exceed the 3.35% to 3.52% range posited in the prior section. Table 1Treasury Yield Projections Under Different Scenarios But how can we decide whether or not the equilibrium fed funds rate is higher than 3%? One imperfect way is to simply track economic growth and look for signs that it is about to slow. Cyclical Nominal GDP Growth Chart 5 shows that one good signal of a recession is when nominal GDP growth falls below the fed funds rate. While this is a fairly reliable recession indicator, it is not always a good method for determining when monetary policy turns restrictive. For example, prior to the last recession nominal GDP growth started to wane when it was still far above the level of the fed funds rate. If we had been waiting for the fed funds rate to exceed nominal GDP growth we would have missed the inflection point toward slower growth. The method worked better prior to the 1990 recession when the fed funds rate was lifted above the pace of nominal GDP growth while the latter was still accelerating. That configuration gave a much clearer real-time signal of restrictive monetary policy. Chart 5Cyclical Spending Suggests That Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative A more refined version of this approach is to track only the cyclical sectors of the economy - those sectors that are most sensitive to interest rates. Growth in those sectors - consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and nonresidential investment for equipment and software - tends to deteriorate prior to major downturns in overall nominal GDP (Chart 5, bottom panel). This method gives us a slightly earlier warning that monetary policy has turned restrictive. On that note, we observe that while cyclical spending as a percent of overall GDP is still in an uptrend, its rate of increase has declined during the past few quarters (Chart 6). This is mostly due to somewhat weaker consumer spending on durables. But we doubt that cyclical spending is in danger of rolling over any time soon. Chart 7 shows that the fundamentals underpinning the key cyclical sectors of the economy remain robust: Consumer sentiment is elevated compared to history, and income growth has started to move higher (Chart 7, top panel). The latter will be helped along by recently enacted tax cuts during the next few months. New orders for core durable goods already display solid growth, and survey indicators give no signal of imminent deterioration (Chart 7, panel 2). On residential investment, homebuilder confidence is near historical highs (Chart 7, panel 3), while mortgage purchase applications so far seem immune from the effects of higher interest rates (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6Cyclical Spending Still Rising... Chart 7...And Fundamentals Remain Sound At the moment, this analysis tells us that monetary policy is probably still accommodative. Once the cyclical sectors of the economy start to slow, that will give us a signal that monetary policy is restrictive and that we are probably near the cyclical peak in Treasury yields. Inflation, Uncertainty And The Price Of Gold But is there another method we can use to track the equilibrium fed funds rate and the stance of monetary policy in real time? We think there is, and it relates to investors' perceptions of inflationary pressures in the economy. First, we recognize that when inflationary pressures are higher, the equilibrium fed funds rate is also higher. In other words, the Fed needs to lift rates further before monetary policy becomes restrictive and inflation starts to flag. This intuition is confirmed by the historical relationship between long-run inflation forecasts and the short-term interest rate (Chart 8). More interestingly, we also observe that uncertainty about the long-run inflation forecast is positively related to implied interest rate volatility, the slope of the yield curve and the price of gold (Chart 9). Once again, this is intuitive. If investors are more uncertain about the long-run inflation outlook they will demand a greater risk premium to bear inflation risk in the long-run, thus driving long-dated bond yields higher. Chart 8Inflation Forecasts &##br## Interest Rates Chart 9Inflation Uncertainty Drives##br## The Term Premium The gold price is positively correlated with inflation uncertainty because gold is in many ways the "anti-Fed" asset. Since it is perceived to be a long-run store of value, investors will bid up the gold price whenever there is a heightened risk that the Fed might "fall behind the curve" allowing inflation to overshoot its target. Conversely, the gold price tends to fall when the perception is that the Fed is "ahead of the curve" and is maintaining an overly restrictive monetary policy. Chart 10Gold Has Led The Fed This is why bond investors would be wise to heed the signal from gold. A sharply rising gold price signals that the fed funds rate is running further below its equilibrium level. This could occur because the Fed is cutting rates to levels that the market deems too low. Or, it could occur because the market now believes that the equilibrium fed funds rate is higher. A sharply falling gold price gives the exact opposite signal. It tells us that either the Fed is lifting the funds rate too far above equilibrium, or that the market is revising down its assessment of the equilibrium rate. This chain of events played out before our eyes during the past few years. The gold price started to fall sharply in early 2013, and continued its decline until late 2015 (Chart 10). A signal that investors were discounting a more restrictive monetary policy stance during that timeframe. But the Fed was not lifting rates during that period. In fact, with hindsight it now seems obvious that the gold price was falling because the market was revising down its assessment of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Investors should also note that the falling gold price signaled a lower equilibrium fed funds rate well before the Fed started to revise down its median forecast for the interest rate that is expected to prevail in the "longer run".3 Tracking the price of gold would have given us a much timelier signal than waiting for the Fed. Chart 10 also shows that the gold price has rebounded since early 2016, but has been confined to a trading range during the past few months. Not coincidentally, this rebound has coincided with the Fed ceasing the downward revisions to its estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Going forward, we think that bond investors would be wise to closely track the price of gold. A significant move higher in the gold price would be a strong signal that the Fed is not tightening policy quickly enough to contain inflationary pressures. In other words, it would signal that the equilibrium fed funds rate should be revised higher. This would drive up implied interest rate volatility, apply steepening pressure to the yield curve, and lead to a higher end-of-cycle target for the 10-year Treasury yield. Bottom Line: The robust performance of the cyclical sectors of the economy suggests that monetary policy remains accommodative. When growth in these interest rate-sensitive sectors starts to slow it will be a good signal that we are approaching the cyclical peak in Treasury yields. Bond investors should also track the price of gold. A breakout to a significantly higher gold price could signal that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised up, suggesting a much higher cyclical peak for Treasury yields. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 208, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 In a recent report we showed that nonfarm payrolls need to increase by 110k or more per month to drive the prime age employment-to-population rate higher, leading to faster wage growth. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Review", dated April 10, 018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The Fed's projection of the interest rate expected to prevail in the "longer run" is essentially its estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification